Quick Fix 50: Return to Tar Valon

[Gears]

Roko held a silver Ouroboros ring in its hands, running its thumb over the green gems that served as eyes. The ring had been worn by Kanaira for many years over the course of many trials and tribulations, but she wore it no longer. She had set it aside for the first and final time, and now Roko was alone.

She had made it promise, in their final hours together, to do the one thing it had sworn to never do. She had asked it to not protect her on this final day. It knew what that meant. What she was going to do. Roko had begged her to reconsider, to come with it on their grand adventure to the stars, but she had refused. Roko did not know what happened, but it knew that she would not have asked for this unless the circumstances were dire. With a heavy heart and tear stained cheeks, it had agreed.

Then she had taken off the ring, and Roko knew that this truly was the end. “Promise me, Roko,” she had asked it in the twilight hours before the sun emerged from its shadowy prison. “Promise me you will let me go.” And so it had taken the ring from her and watched as she pulled out her gleaming blade. “Go, Roko,” she had told him, smiling as the weight of the webs and lies and agony slid off her shoulders at long last. “See the stars for me.”

It stared into the Serpent's empty, vacant eyes for a long moment, and mourned.

 

Jam, Kai, Bubbles: Do we deem Operation: Pathfinder Survival a success or a failure? Lots of us died, but I survived, so technically the party made it to the end, right?

I'm quitting QFs. I liked this, but they move far too fast for me. This was fun.

To Kai: That was the sweetest thing anyone's ever done in my life. I'm sorry for your loss.

Farewell.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Gears

[Mat he/him]

Thanks for GMing, TJ! you did a good job handling our chaos xD

Illwei, I promise that I wasn't sheeping you on purpose. Our reads just were synced, which turned out not to be a bad thing.

Quinn! I apparently can read you! So that's cool, I guess  

Breaker, excellent job being the final elim. You were basically the only person I didn't suspect when I died, so very well done. 

...And yes, I completely forgot that Ash was Blue. My bad  

Fun fact: This is the second game I've played that ended in one survivor, the other being LG69 and Illwei.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Illwei]

1 minute ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Fun fact: This is the second game I've played that ended in one survivor, the other being LG68 and Illwei.

I do think you mean LG69, as LG68 was your Elim game, where you were executed

Great Job Breaker :P.

If this game has a Lesson for me, I think it would be 1) trust my gut reads more than I do right now, which is not at all :P.  Of course I don't wanna follow them blindly, but I don't want to ignore them like I definitely did in this game, and  2) Try not to keep my plans to myself, and remember to get on before rollover :P.

Now to look through the Elim doc :P. (and the GM spreadsheet where I'm told I'll find a nice distribution that should have existed where I'm on the Elim team as well :P)
 

[Mat he/him]

Just now, Illwei said:

I do think you mean LG69, as LG68 was your Elim game, where you were executed

I edited it immediately like five minutes ago shhhhhh

 

[Archer he/him]

I am awarding Quinn the Honorary Canadian award for saying sorry to no less than five people in the elim doc, two of which who weren't even in it. 

Breaker, that was a fabulous gambit. Don't do it again. 

Good game, all. TJ, you're insane. Thank you. 

[Quintessential she/her]

6 minutes ago, Archer said:

I am awarding Quinn the Honorary Canadian award for saying sorry to no less than five people in the elim doc, two of which who weren't even in it. 

I... did? I don't remember doing that...

37 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Quinn! I apparently can read you! So that's cool, I guess  

Yet another reason to hope I get vil next time.

Congratulations to Illwei and Matrim for being right about things XD 

Also kudos to Breaker for lasting as long as he did... I thought we would lose immediately when three of us died in consecutive cycles, but Breaker managed to hang on for quite a while. Nice first elim game!

Also, apparently Ash's D1 kill analysis is, in fact, quite good--both games he's done it, the final list included 3/4 of the elim team. I'm just glad you guys didn't listen to it this time lol

[+Lotus she/her]

Whoo! That was a fun game. Haven't been an Elim many times. (;

Very happy to have played with Quinn and Striker, good games y'all.

I kept forgetting that Quinn was on our side and honestly read her as village. 

[James Brafin he/him]

!!!!

That was not the ending I was expecting!

A fine game by all. Prolly going to stay away from QFs until summer because hektik but it was a lot of fun for sure.

[StrikerEZ he/him]

Hello all! That was really fun, even if I was dead by the second day!

Thank you @TJ Shade for running a really fun game and I am so sorry for all the chaos you had to deal with on a daily basis.

[Liranil she/her]

Thank you @TJ Shade for GMing, and this was super fun! 

I'm kinda sad I died so early (in hindsight, I wouldn't have announced my kills after I proved myself the first round), but this was definitely still fun. My homework is certainly glad I died so soon.

[Condensation she/her]

I told you so.

Just saying.

I don't lie... but I guess it doesn't currently help my case that the only elim left was defending my honor. XD

Good game, Breaker! You played us all well.

[Gears]

A reply to a message in the dead doc, which I have finally gotten around to reading:

Quote

I don’t think gears even after reading this will think he’s done anything that would be wrong, or maybe he will and just not care.

@Illwei, you're right. I don't. I don't know how to explain this to you. I don't know if I can explain this to you. I will just say this: A victory in that scenario would be meaningless. Pyrrhic. Empty. If I had earned it, if we'd kept the masks up a little longer and pretended that we didn't know, then perhaps. But after the reveal? After everything? Imagine someone made you a cake, and in return, you smashed it into their face. That was what winning in that scenario was to me. A waste. An act of spite and boredom and the sheer desire to win? Who wants to win like that? [And I do not mean to insinuate that wanting to win over the process to get there is wrong, but I personally do not prioritise winning over enjoying the victory.] It's like... It's like there's a trophy on a shelf, and you could smash it over someone's head to keep it, or you could just... not. And sure, you wouldn't get to keep the trophy, but that doesn't really... matter. At least to me. We all crave the tantalising taste of victory, but it's never as good when you finally have it. The joy is not the win but the process. The art of taking hearts and buying souls, of spikes in the dark and careful plots in the night. The art of subtle logic and guessing games, of keen eyes and open hearts. And if we fall, we fall. If we die, we die. Journey before destination. The game before the outcome.

None of this detracts from the fact that you're right. You're right, Illwei. I don't know if I do not comprehend or do not care [or even if there is a difference, in the end], but you obviously care about this more than I. In the future, I will attempt to avoid acting in a manner that makes me happier at the cost of victory. I will attempt to match the playstyle that has been mandated in the newly updated rules. I will attempt to let my opinions fall by the wayside on this issue. I concede this, because I will never be able to change everyone's mind. The rules have been altered, the meta has judged, and my opinion has been deemed incorrect. Very well then. As Manoj Arora said, “You either bend, or you break. Suppress your ego to stay happy.” Embrace change or be left behind. And so I will become one with the Great Machine or I will shatter in the attempt. Falling feels like flying until you hit the ground. We leap off the edge and let the wind carry us away. And the earth welcomes us all home eventually, crushing us beneath the weight of the world. 

My apologies, I did not mean to ramble. 'Twas supposed to be a mere sentence or two regarding my own bizarre mentality. In the end, I say only this: Journey before destination, but change is inevitable, an endless march towards a self we do not recognise. As we carve away that which we do not want, as we excise the wrong and the bad, as we prune our garden into a shape more pleasing, we leave much behind. And maybe the future will be better, and maybe the future will be worse, but the future will be different. The Voices of God have spoken, and so it must be. The tide rushes in, and some are dragged beneath the waves. 

This is not the end. I do not want this to be the end. But we disagree. 

[Condensation she/her]

I... I mean, I would have really liked to win...

Since I still haven't won even once and this is my seventh game...

But yeah, I'd probably end up regretting it.

Journey before destination.

[Mat he/him]

25 minutes ago, Condensation said:

Since I still haven't won even once and this is my seventh game...

I mean...

8 hours ago, TJ Shade said:

Rebel Aes Sedai are deemed to have won. 

 

8 hours ago, TJ Shade said:

Condensation - Connie Rebel Aes Sedai [Warder]

Journey before destination. Deserves many the upvotes, Gears.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Condensation she/her]

5 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I mean...

 

Journey before destination. Deserves many the upvotes, Gears.

Wait... I didn't read that well enough. I guess I just assumed...

Seventh time's the charm!

[Illwei]

1 hour ago, Gears said:

A victory in that scenario would be meaningless. Pyrrhic. Empty

1 hour ago, Gears said:

If I had earned it, if we'd kept the masks up a little longer and pretended that we didn't know, then perhaps

The main point I had was that I didn't think that Breaker should have made that move in the first place, and I believed that you would side with Breaker in his onions.
So the "He" there, was referring to Breaker, and not you.

I agree that in the end there a win wouldn't mean anything. The moment Breaker revealed in thread everything felt meaningless to me.

1 hour ago, Gears said:

That was what winning in that scenario was to me. A waste. An act of spite and boredom and the sheer desire to win?

I can Understand this view, but also the view of everyone who worked for that win. Yes it was handed to you there at the end, but that wasn't the problem to me. I know that personally i put in a lot of work, and the fact that you, at the end there, sided with him because you were friends? It felt like a punch. It felt like nothing I did mattered. It felt like I wasted hours on this game because someone was throwing, for "fun". I understand that at the end there it felt to you like you were having fun- I definitely saw that, and I'm glad that this ending was fun for you.

Again, this is definitely more of a problem I had with what Breaker did than what you did. I don't like that you sided with Breaker, but my main issue was I didn't like what Breaker did.

1 hour ago, Gears said:

I will attempt to avoid acting in a manner that makes me happier at the cost of victory. I will attempt to match the playstyle that has been mandated in the newly updated rules.

1) I definitely didn't mean it like that, and I apologize it came across like that. I did not mean for you to sacrifice fun for winning. But I did mean my above comment.

2) I appreciate this, but also I definitely wouldn't consider "gamethrowing" a playstyle. Maybe this is a matter of opinion. To me, How you approach the completion of your wincon is a playstyle. Actively/Intentionally going against that wincon in a way that will most certainly make your team lose? I don't consider that a 'playstyle'. Maybe a matter of opinion.

All in all, I am thoroughly tired. I don't intend to hurt you with anything I say, I don't intend to attack or antagonize you at all. I apologize if anything I say comes across that way.

[Gears]

26 minutes ago, Illwei said:

I agree that in the end there a win wouldn't mean anything. The moment Breaker revealed in thread everything felt meaningless to me.

Illwei, I've been talking with Breaker, [they say hi [the smile is from them, not me]] trying to understand his strategy, and the point where things ceased to matter was far earlier than that. To win instead of draw, Breaker would have to 1. Kill no one C8 [maybe hitting one of me or him], 2. Get James to X Matrim, and 3. Get me to X James. The first two are easy enough, but I knew that James was a villager. There was simply too much evidence. While Kai and I are friends, it would have been obvious. Getting the third point was impossible. James and I would X him, and he would lose. Therefore, to go for the win was to lose. As such, to play optimally, Breaker had to go for the tie. He could have gotten the tie by killing James instead of Matrim, getting the mis-X on Matrim while NK'ing me, and then we kill each other, but then we end up at the same place. Us, at the end, facing off against death. Sidenote: I don't even know if the elims win if everyone dies since they have to outnumber, not equal. If that is the case, then he would have lost in all cases except for the reveal and hope strategy.  

26 minutes ago, Illwei said:

Again, this is definitely more of a problem I had with what Breaker did than what you did. I don't like that you sided with Breaker, but my main issue was I didn't like what Breaker did.

To summarise above: Breaker couldn't have won. He could have fought for a universal death, or he could have had a bit of fun with a chance at succeeding. Please reconsider your opinion of his choice when you recognise that going for the fun draw is basically equal to going for the semi-reliable mass death and that playing to win was a certain loss.

26 minutes ago, Illwei said:

1) I definitely didn't mean it like that, and I apologize it came across like that. I did not mean for you to sacrifice fun for winning. But I did mean my above comment.

This point wasn't really meant as a critique of you, more of a critique of the decision. I disagree, but the meta has moved on, and if I want to enjoy the game, I must move on as well. The meta has decided that "gamethrowing" is forbidden. The meta has decided that going for a fun option over a reliable option to get the same result is forbidden. The meta has decided many things, and I bow to authority. It's here or nowhere, after all, and I like SE. 

26 minutes ago, Illwei said:

2) I appreciate this, but also I definitely wouldn't consider "gamethrowing" a playstyle. Maybe this is a matter of opinion. To me, How you approach the completion of your wincon is a playstyle. Actively/Intentionally going against that wincon in a way that will most certainly make your team lose? I don't consider that a 'playstyle'. Maybe a matter of opinion.

"Gamethrowing" is vague and the criticisms of Breaker for "gamethrowing" do not seem credible when one actually analyses the possible outcomes of him winning and losing at each option. He would lose, everyone would die [which probably means the elims lose since they never achieved their win-con of outnumbering the village, though I don't know for certain], or he could put his faith in me and most likely lose. The game could not have been thrown because the game was not won. No path led to victory. There was no way for him win. He just took the route that could possibly lead to a victory in the very niche case where I conceded and a likely draw. So technically, he did the opposite of throwing the game. And while the last cycle suicide was not optimal, I think that was out of frustration with the ruling. He was... very upset, to say the least. Sidenote: By your definition, "gamethrowing" is a playstyle. You approach completing your win-con by running away from it as fast as you can. 

26 minutes ago, Illwei said:

All in all, I am thoroughly tired. I don't intend to hurt you with anything I say, I don't intend to attack or antagonize you at all. I apologize if anything I say comes across that way.

You didn't hurt me. My post was supposed to be a response to you alone but evolved into a rant about the decision. You are not responsible for my emotions right now. Your only error was incomprehension, and I will not fault you for that. I am also tired. Tired of misunderstandings, tired of my friends being hurt, tired of a lot of things. But none of that is your fault. It is not my place to lay blame as I lack sufficient context, but I say this: It was not your fault. Do not apologise for something that you did not do. 

I am going to sleep now, but before you respond to this, just think about this. Think about Breaker's options. Think about the likelihood of each. And please, reconsider. I think he made the best decision out of many bad ones. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I just want you to take a moment to reflect. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Gears

[StrikerEZ he/him]

I’ve said most of my thoughts about this situation in the spec doc. If anyone’s curious to hear more of my thoughts, you can read them there.

As for what @Gears has said: Breaker easily could’ve won still. In C9, he votes you last minute and submits a kill on you. James was the only one to vote, and on himself, so James dies, you lose your extra life to either the exe or the kill, and Breaker is the last player standing. I can understand not wanting to do this, as it could have felt like a betrayal. But is not the point of the game to betray and lie to each other? Is not the point of the game to try and win? Obviously we want to have fun first and foremost, but if we aren’t really trying to win, what’s the point?

Anyway, I really don’t think we need a rule to say that something like this isn’t allowed. We just need guidelines and recommendations about making sure we pay attention to how our actions can affect other players. Like, sure, you and Breaker had a lot of fun doing that ending.  But was it worth negatively affecting the enjoyment of the game for many other people? And I’ll be honest: my enjoyment was negatively affected, but seeing the RP you guys wrote was enjoyable at the same time.

Anyway, not sure where I was going with this. But...I don’t know. I’m just tired of talking about this.

Edited January 24, 2021 by StrikerEZ

[Illwei]

2 minutes ago, Gears said:

James and I would X him, and he would lose.

Well then we are being fed two stories. I was told that he knew he could win- In most outcomes he could win, so therefore he wanted to play fun, leaving it up to you. I could tell you the possibilities, but I don't see why you can't think of them for yourself. I will let you do that.

5 minutes ago, Gears said:

The game could not have been thrown because the game was not won. No path led to victory. There was no way for him win

Reading through this I don't see a lot. I see you restating, over and over, that he could have won. There was a path to victory, and he could have taken it. He told this to me. I don't know what he's telling you, but I am more than willing to share the messages that he sent me stating exactly that.

8 minutes ago, Gears said:

You are not responsible for my emotions right now.

I did not claim responsibility for your emotions, nor will I. If someone is not comprehending the situation it isn't me. Though I don't think that you are. I think that you are being fed a false narrative, and I can't do anything about what you think about the game because of that.

I also agree that the definition we have for "Gamethrowing" is incredibly vague. but "Gamethrowing" is "by its most basic and all-encompassing definition, is knowingly playing against your win-condition." That is easy enough to follow.
I think that if you are playing against your wincon, and you are going about it actively and intentionally, then you should take a step back, take a look at the game you signed up for, and reconsider. I don't think it should be too hard to figure that out.

My personal line, for further reference, is doing something that will intentionally hurt your team, to the point that it sets them back, and makes it so they either can't win, or it's hard for them to win.
If I were to, in a situation where the village is clearly going to win, change my actions in a way that it maybe sets things back a but the village will still wins? I don't consider that to be a problem.

[|TJ| he/him]

GM Thoughts:

Even though the case is specific here, I believe this has to be said in general, so all "you"s refer to everyone in general.

1. We throw around the word "fun" a lot when it comes to SE. "Hey, always prioritize having fun to winning" "Sure winning is good, but having fun is more important". I want to emphasize that this refers to aggressive competitiveness, the "I don't care about anyone else as long as I win" type of mentality. To curb this type of mentality, we say "having fun is the most important." But in this case, the "fun" you guys refer to just became "I don't care about anyone else as long as I do what I want". The "fun" we refer to is a collective term, the fun and enjoyment of everyone and I mean everyone who is playing. If the way you want to achieve fun causes disappointment to even a single person who is playing, it is not in spirit with SE. You just cannot call it fun, when it deliberately hurts even a single player. Fun for an individual or two, at the expense of causing disappointment and hurt to other players is just not it. You are literally telling "I do not care about the enjoyment of others, as long as I enjoy myself". 
2. Dead people are not in fact, dead. Most of them are invested in the game. They spend a decent chunk of their day lives and commit it to SE. Just because they are dead, it does not mean they or their opinions are invalid. We are playing a team game, which should be obvious as I feel ridiculous feeling the need to say it. As such, each action you take affects your team and teammates in some way. Put yourself in your teammates shoes, and look at it from their perspective. Empathize. Is it worth doing this given it's likely to hurt someone on my team, dead or alive?
3. GM and IM rulings: Why do you think we make a decision? Is it to control you? Is it to restrain you because we get someone sort of satisfaction from it? Heck man, the sole purpose of creating a game is for you guys to have fun. When we make a decision, it is by considering what is best for everyone and what is best for the game as a whole. Breaker asked us if he could go for a deliberate tie when he could win. Because this directly affects his teammates, we asked for their thoughts. 2/3 remaining elims told they'd want him to go for the win. We ruled that he could not do so. I'll talk more about it in the gamethrowing part. But what followed was Breaker being extremely upset at this decision, telling he didn't think it was appropriate for us to tell him "don't do that", that he was stunned at being given an order and he felt railroaded and might quit the forum. You may recall him mentioning this in the thread in C8, as well as in the sign-ups for the LG. This is not an appropriate reaction for telling "don't do this, your actions will hurt your teammates". It does not get better though, as he asks the consequences of going through with it anyway. He wanted to ignore the IM ruling and go through with this plan anyway, and he did. At this point, I just decided to let this play out because the alternative was to modkill him for going against the IM, and I did not want to take that route. So when asked for the consequences, I mentioned he would risk upsetting and hurting his teammates. To this, he replied "I accept", meaning he didn't care that he was hurting his teammates to get what he wanted
4. Reasons for Ruling: The first and most obvious, he was hurting his teammates. But this goes a lot more than that.

   a. He was gamethrowing to set up a situation which would lead to Gears gamethrowing. 
   b. I know James was seemingly fine with it perhaps because they were friends, but at the time, he was talking about killing James and letting Matrim survive to the last round. It set up a situation in which Matrim had to witness his own teammate vote on him, which would be extremely annoying for him. 
   c. Future consequences leading to the thoughts like "Will the future GMs think twice about putting him in an elim game again?" and that would lead to the meta that Breaker would be village most of the time, and "How will future teammates of Breaker treat him if they know he exhibits such behaviour? Will there be arguments and friction in the future?" all of it could be culled with this ruling here and now. 
   d. Going this way definitely felt like a pity-draw or gifting the villagers a draw, which would not go well with them, as is the case now.
   e. Gears would be put in a position of betraying his friend or betraying his entire team. Now, I cannot anticipate how Gears would react to that, but what I could do is avoid putting him in that position in the first place. If he betrays his friend, there'd be discontent there. If he betrayed his team, like he attempted, his teammates would be rightly upset. This move to create this situation did not lead to any sort of outcome in which some or the other party was not upset. 
   All these put together just made it clear that it would lead to a very messy situation.

5. Gamethrowing: No, I don't believe that Breaker couldn't win the game. In fact, neither did he. I have stated in the dead doc of the ways he could win the game. In fact, he did have an alternate plan to win when we ruled that he couldn't go for a tie, before he decided to ignore our ruling. His plan was to go for a WGG in C8, which he thought was his way to win. Even the path he took, by killing Matrim, he could win, and he knew it. He had stated multiple times that he "wanted to go for the fun tie rather than a boring win". He had a fairly straightforward path to a win, and he believed it. Why is Gamethrowing bad? I can't believe I have to say this, but you're literally invalidating the efforts of everyone who is playing the game. Like Illwei said, everyone who is playing is putting time and effort into the game. By attempting to gamethrow, Breaker invalidates the effort and time put in by his teammates. By attempting to gamethrow, Gears invalidates the time and effort invested by the villagers. Yes, he is forced to a position where he has to choose to throw or to go for a gifted victory. But he is failing to see something important. If he truly believed that Breaker could not win, it is because of the efforts put in in the early rounds by the village. Breaker is in this position because of villagers figuring out the other elims efficiently. By throwing it at this point, he's erasing and invalidating all their efforts. 
   If I'm reading it correctly, Gears disagrees with the change in the ruling. He believes having fun should precede everything and that going for the fun option over going for the win should be allowed. This was fun for whom? Breaker? Sure. Gears? Maybe. But elims? It wasn't. Striker was upset with this decision as he has made it clear in the dead doc. Villagers? Some of them didn't have opinions, most were upset at being gifted a draw. But "fun" wasn't mentioned at all. As I mentioned earlier, fun for one or two individuals at the expense of disappointing the rest is not fun at all. 

6. OOG Talks: I've seen hints that Gears and Breaker were talking about the game outside the only place they could, the thread or their Warder PM. One of the instances was when Gears exclaimed that Breaker was right about Burnt being a Brown, but I couldn't find any such statement made by Breaker prior to this message. And it seems Gears already knew Breaker was going to kill himself and had asked Gears not to protect him, but I don't find any such messages between them as well. If I'm missing something, and there were no such talks, ignore this point. But if it's true, I don't even know what to say to players who are unable to conform to the rules of the game. 

I don't even know if I've told everything I want to say so I might revisit this stuff later. Mechanics and distribution talks will have to wait, as I believe this is important and deserves a post of its own.

Edited January 24, 2021 by TJ Shade

[Gears]

I am not going to continue this argument. That would do nothing but alienate people, and I don't think either side will convince the other that they are right. [Mostly because I'm stubborn and the other side has the majority.] Occasionally, I find the hill I would die upon. I fight for it, lose friends, alienate people, and end up alone. I gain nothing, I lose everything. Mostly because I am not very good at explaining my opinions clearly, and I get very irrational about things I'm passionate about. I am not going to do that here. I am not going to continue arguing because there is no point. What's done is done, and it doesn't really matter what you think about it, because even if you concede the argument, emotions do not fade so easily, and thus it would not be productive. I ascribe much of our disagreement to fundamentally different paradigms towards SE and games in general. I cannot change your way of thinking in a single argument. So I am stepping back and letting go. Winning this argument would give me nothing but vindictive satisfaction.

Continuing to argue is pointless, so I simply will not. Demonstrate the flaws in my posts above all you want, but I will not respond. I evidently am incapable of changing your minds. I tried, and I have been deemed wrong. OK then. I tried, at least. And that's enough to just... let go. I tried, I failed. Time to move on. I do not want to burn these bridges just yet. I like SE. I want to stay. And so, I withdraw from this argument. You can only plant an idea in a mind that will accept it. You disagree. You fundamentally disagree. Very well then. Let my position be vilified, let my opinion be discarded, let my attempts at persuasion be brushed aside. [I am not accusing anyone of doing this, I am merely stating that this will inevitably happen as the weight of time grinds our bones to dust.] Authority has deemed me wrong, and so I am wrong. I do not concede, but I will not fight anymore. Farewell.

[Quintessential she/her]

@TJ Shade (instead of quoting because that's a long post and I'm responding to all of it)

I guess I didn't think about any of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense. I was the dead elim who didn't mind if Breaker went ahead with it, but in retrospect that was because a. I'd more or less checked out of the game after C2, before I even died and b. after I died Breaker and I had an OOG PM going where he told me his plans and I smiled and nodded and said nothing because I was dead. So I already knew about the plan to gamethrow when it came up as an actual issue, and I'd been told in a setting where I didn't feel like I could argue with it, at a time when I didn't really want to. 

That being said, having checked out of the game I wasn't thinking about the other players as a whole, so I... yeah, I want to apologize for being fine with the game being ruined for you guys, I guess. I spent a little while being pretty frustrated with other aspects of the game, which on the one hand wasn't a conscious reason that I said I was fine with Breaker's idea, but on the other hand I should have realized that other people might be similarly frustrated with something like this... So, I'm sorry. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Quinn0928

[STINK he/him]

8 hours ago, Gears said:

The meta has decided that "gamethrowing" is forbidden.

woe betide

[little wilson she/her]

13 hours ago, Gears said:

The meta has decided that "gamethrowing" is forbidden. The meta has decided that going for a fun option over a reliable option to get the same result is forbidden. The meta has decided many things, and I bow to authority. It's here or nowhere, after all, and I like SE. 

The meta has not said that gamethrowing is forbidden. On the contrary, the new addition to the rules says this:

Quote

• Your forum or real-life relationships with other players should not cause you to play against your team's win condition, and should not be used to attempt to influence another person to play against their win condition.
• As a corollary to some of the above points, please limit gamethrowing. Sometimes, going for a tie or a mutual win instead of a victory for your team is not a bad thing, and can even be fun. However, one should not make this kind of decision unilaterally if one has teammates. Consult your teammates (even if they are dead) to learn how they will feel if you throw the game, as this decision affects them as well. If they are not okay with it, we strongly advise against throwing the game.

And that's really just a placeholder until we get the finalized version in - I wanted to get something in there asap, considering what was happening, and the basics here are generally agreed-upon by the mods. So, to be clear: gamethrowing is to be limited. We recognize that there are times when not playing to your win condition (and in fact playing completely counter to your win condition in a way that will cause you and your team to lose and you know that) is a perfectly fine option. Case in point: MR19 when the village worked together with the eliminators to go for the Bondsmith win condition. Due to both a lack of PM safety and bad luck, the village discovered the identities of all of the eliminators during cycle 2 and could've easily had them killed and won, but there was a secondary way of winning, through the role of the Bondsmith, and the village decided to work with the elims for that win instead. They discarded their primary win condition - kill the eliminators - for a win con specific to a role, because they decided that would be more fun than just killing the elims and calling it good.

The key to gamethrowing is that you not make those decisions unilaterally when that decision will affect others. It's one thing if, as a villager, you do something chaotic that's not technically to your win con but you're pretty sure it's not going to cost your team and it doesn't affect another player's specific enjoyment to the game (read: the difference between blackmailing another player vs helping out the eliminators a little bit in a way that still doesn't cost the village the win). But when what you're doing will affect others, you should at least get an idea of what those others think about it.

TJ has already explained what happened here - Breaker wanted the tie because it would make for a better ending since he felt the win would be boring (nowhere in the interactions I saw or had with him did he express that he thought he couldn't win). Both the GM and the IM advised him not to. Araris asked the dead teammates their opinions, and the majority opinion was discontent. Breaker was then strongly advised not to do this. He threw a tantrum that he was being railroaded, and then asked what would happen if he did not listen. The IM told him that he didn't think the moderator team has ever taken disciplinary action against anyone (this isn't quite true, because we have, but we've never taken disciplinary action against anyone for this reason, and we wouldn't have here either). He was told that while his team did not like it, the decision was ultimately his, but he should put himself in other player's shoes before making a decision like this - but again, the decision was ultimately his.

Now, given Breaker has been banned, I want to be clear that he was not banned for doing this. Araris was correct that we wouldn't have punished him for going against the meta like this. We would've let the community handle it, as is fitting for meta issues. Breaker was given a fairly light punishment for a situation tied to this, with the rules broken cited very clearly, and told that if he argued, more punishment may follow. He argued. Eric/Chaos got involved, and he continued arguing. And then he was banned.

 

5 hours ago, Gears said:

I am not going to continue this argument. That would do nothing but alienate people, and I don't think either side will convince the other that they are right. [Mostly because I'm stubborn and the other side has the majority.] Occasionally, I find the hill I would die upon. I fight for it, lose friends, alienate people, and end up alone. I gain nothing, I lose everything. Mostly because I am not very good at explaining my opinions clearly, and I get very irrational about things I'm passionate about. I am not going to do that here. I am not going to continue arguing because there is no point. What's done is done, and it doesn't really matter what you think about it, because even if you concede the argument, emotions do not fade so easily, and thus it would not be productive. I ascribe much of our disagreement to fundamentally different paradigms towards SE and games in general. I cannot change your way of thinking in a single argument. So I am stepping back and letting go.

Continuing to argue is pointless, so I simply will not. Demonstrate the flaws in my posts above all you want, but I will not respond. I evidently am incapable of changing your minds. I tried, and I have been deemed wrong. OK then. I tried, at least. And that's enough to just... let go. I tried, I failed. Time to move on. I do not want to burn these bridges just yet. I like SE. I want to stay. And so, I withdraw from this argument. You can only plant an idea in a mind that will accept it. You disagree. You fundamentally disagree. Very well then. Let my position be vilified, let my opinion be discarded, let my attempts at persuasion be brushed aside. [I am not accusing anyone of doing this, I am merely stating that this will inevitably happen as the weight of time grinds our bones to dust.] Authority has deemed me wrong, and so I am wrong. I do not concede, but I will not fight anymore. Farewell.

This concerns me. What, exactly, are these fundamental disagreements about SE, as you see them?

Stepping back and letting it go doesn't help if you feel any sort of resentment towards the people who you feel are forcing you to do this. You're right that you can only plant an idea in a mind that will accept it, which is precisely why I'm concerned. You're clearly unhappy with this situation and I think it's fair to say that you disagree with what's been done. You're saying you're gonna drop it, but does that apply just to the discussion or to the actions done here? If you don't know why the actions done are problematic, how do you intend to avoid similar problems in the future? Please note that I'm not blaming you for this situation. Breaker is entirely at fault for what happened here. My concern is that you don't seem to recognize what Breaker did wrong, and if you don't see that, it's entirely possible that you'll end up in a similar position at some point in the future and you'll do something that has the same end result of making other players unhappy. I would like to avoid that, if possible.

-

The only way these games stay nice and positive and fun for everyone is if the whole community is behind the focus of the games - that being a focus on fun rather than aggressive competitiveness. TJ already talked about this in his first point, but I want to emphasize it. These games have not always been focused on the overall idea of "fun". There was a time when a number of players played highly aggressively (because highly aggressive play was fun for them) and pushed for the win above all else (because winning was fun for them). Many people got hurt through this type of aggressive play but the players causing it did not care, because it was in the cause of winning and their fun.

Through much effort, we have a meta that puts a community idea of fun above this type of competitive play. Or at least, we have had this meta for the last few years. But between this issue in this game and the blackmail in the AG, I'm a little worried that the meta is drifting toward competitiveness again, and I'm also a little worried that the vast majority of players don't see this as a bad thing.

If you enjoy playing highly competitive mafia, there are plenty of communities online you can do that. SE is not meant to be that aggressive. The win is not supposed to come at the cost of the game's fun for everyone. I know TJ hated the last couple cycles running this game. For a bit, he felt like all of his efforts in GMing were a waste of time, because this is what happened. That's not fun.

And in case anyone is wondering about the seeming dissonance between playing for fun over the win and Breaker doing exactly that, the difference is the gamethrow and the massive discontent displayed on both sides that was completely disregarded. Sure, it was fun for Breaker, and apparently for Gears, but at what cost? Fun for two players should not come at the cost of most of the rest of the people in the game. That's not the "fun" we're going for in this community.

The last time the players who had fun playing competitively got in control of the meta, SE came close to shutting down permanently. Highly competitive mafia games do not belong on this forum. They break the code of conduct. So, please, when we say focus on fun, we mean don't put your idea of fun above everyone else's idea of fun. And if you're considering doing something chaotic that might go against this, talk to the GM. Talk to the IM. And then follow whatever advice they give. And please, don't ask what'll happen if you ignore that advice.

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

I'm new here, so I won't throw too much of my opinion in, but I have some things to say.

Off site, I vehemently against gamethrowing, o will be the first to report in other games. So when Breaker revealed I got a little mad, but when I heard his story from Gears, I cooled down and got on his side.

After hearing that he could have possibly, maybe, kinda won, I am now very much against his choice. If he had played to win, and people had gotten bored and stopped being interested in the game, I would have been at least indifferent, if not happy, that he revealed. But that's not what he did, he revealed when he had a path to victory and had been told that his teammates were against him revealing and that the GM and IM were against his revealing. I agree with this sites policy for the fun of all, rather than the fun of few. That's what this came down to: fun of the many versus the fun of the few. So, if Breaker had listened to others, looked at his options, and not revealed, we wouldn't be here.

That's my newcomer two cents.

Edited January 24, 2021 by The Unknown Order